There is no School solution, since the "question" post-dates the Schools.

I trust you on this, though I have read otherwise. So, would you agree all can stand on the head? If not, why not?

If an angel were spatially located in such a way that he could be (metaphorically) described as standing on the head of a pin, his presence there would not prevent the presence of any (or all) other separate substances in that same space. But strictly speaking, the spatial "location" of angels is by way of exercise of their power, and not by way of material presence: the angel does not occupy space. And hence the supposition in the first sentence above is false: angels are not spatially located in such a way that they could be even metaphorically described as standing on the head of a pin. And their presence in a place by their power is definitive: it excludes the presence of another angel there at the same time.

There is no School solution, since the "question" post-dates the Schools.

I trust you on this, though I have read otherwise. So, would you agree all can stand on the head? If not, why not?

If an angel were spatially located in such a way that he could be (metaphorically) described as standing on the head of a pin, his presence there would not prevent the presence of any (or all) other separate substances in that same space. But strictly speaking, the spatial "location" of angels is by way of exercise of their power, and not by way of material presence: the angel does not occupy space. And hence the supposition in the first sentence above is false: angels are not spatially located in such a way that they could be even metaphorically described as standing on the head of a pin. And their presence in a place by their power is definitive: it excludes the presence of another angel there at the same time.

There is no School solution, since the "question" post-dates the Schools.

I trust you on this, though I have read otherwise. So, would you agree all can stand on the head? If not, why not?

If an angel were spatially located in such a way that he could be (metaphorically) described as standing on the head of a pin, his presence there would not prevent the presence of any (or all) other separate substances in that same space. But strictly speaking, the spatial "location" of angels is by way of exercise of their power, and not by way of material presence: the angel does not occupy space. And hence the supposition in the first sentence above is false: angels are not spatially located in such a way that they could be even metaphorically described as standing on the head of a pin. And their presence in a place by their power is definitive: it excludes the presence of another angel there at the same time.

The wetness of water depends on how we define the word wet. Wiktionary offers two relevant definitions of wet. The first is: "Of an object, etc, covered with or impregnated with liquid." By this definition, water itself is not wet formally but only eminently--that is to say, it has the power to cause wetness without itself being wet. The second definition is: "Made up of liquid or moisture." By this definition, water is wet. But even by this second definition, the wetness that water imparts to something else is wetness only by analogy, not univocally.

The wetness of water depends on how we define the word wet. Wiktionary offers two relevant definitions of wet. The first is: "Of an object, etc, covered with or impregnated with liquid." By this definition, water itself is not wet formally but only eminently--that is to say, it has the power to cause wetness without itself being wet. The second definition is: "Made up of liquid or moisture." By this definition, water is wet. But even by this second definition, the wetness that water imparts to something else is wetness only by analogy, not univocally.

Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.

"And," laughed Frodo, "it is also said: Go not to the Jedi for counsel for they will say both yes and no."

The wetness of water depends on how we define the word wet. Wiktionary offers two relevant definitions of wet. The first is: "Of an object, etc, covered with or impregnated with liquid." By this definition, water itself is not wet formally but only eminently--that is to say, it has the power to cause wetness without itself being wet. The second definition is: "Made up of liquid or moisture." By this definition, water is wet. But even by this second definition, the wetness that water imparts to something else is wetness only by analogy, not univocally.

Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.

That was gonna be my second answer but I got distracted and never got around to posting it.

What I want to know is: when the nearly-infinite number of angels are standing on the head of a pin, will they feel the wetness of dehydrated water when it is added to instant water tablets and secondly: if dehydrated water freezes is it still wet?

What I want to know is: when the nearly-infinite number of angels are standing on the head of a pin, will they feel the wetness of dehydrated water when it is added to instant water tablets and secondly: if dehydrated water freezes is it still wet?

What I want to know is: when the nearly-infinite number of angels are standing on the head of a pin, will they feel the wetness of dehydrated water when it is added to instant water tablets and secondly: if dehydrated water freezes is it still wet?